June 28, 2023 - Bannon's War Room
48:48
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| This is the primal scream of a dying regime. | ||
| Pray for our enemies, because we're going medieval on these people. | ||
| I got a free shot of all these networks lying about the people. | ||
| The people have had a belly full of it. | ||
| I know you don't like hearing that. | ||
| I know you try to do everything in the world to stop that, but you're not going to stop it. | ||
| It's going to happen. | ||
| And where do people like that go to share the big lie? | ||
| MAGA Media. I wish in my soul, I wish that any of these people had a conscience. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Ask yourself, what is my task and what is my purpose? | |
| If that answer is to save my country, this country will be saved. | ||
|
unidentified
|
War Room, here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | |
| Good evening from New York, I'm Chris Hayes. | ||
| It is not often the case these days, but today the Supreme Court issued a long anticipated, monumental ruling that actually bolsters America's democratic strength. | ||
| Now, the case before the court today contained at its core an idea that was central to the Donald Trump scheme to overturn the 2020 elections. | ||
| The question of whether state legislatures can do whatever they want in elections, up to and including simply appointing electors to their preferred candidate, even when the citizens of their state vote the other way. | ||
| Trump's lawyers pushed the idea that Republican legislators in all kinds of states could simply ignore the will of the people in states that voted for Joe Biden and opt instead to send their own fake electors, Trump electors, to Congress. | ||
| It was fake electors in seven swing states, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Nevada, that in coordination with the Trump campaign, sought to overthrow the election results. | ||
| Trump and his lawyer John Eastman, along with others, actively lobbied for and pushed this idea across multiple states, trying in fact to get state legislatures to abandon their core democratic duty and choose instead a path to essentially crown Trump king. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Court has rejected a controversial legal theory that would have transformed election laws across this country. | |
| The case involved a disputed congressional district map in North Carolina that was drawn by Republicans. | ||
| Now, the state argued that the Constitution gives legislators nearly unlimited power to make rules for presidential and congressional elections in their states. | ||
| On a six to three vote, the justices dismissed the independent state legislature theory. | ||
| That's what it's called. The decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts maintains this, that state courts can decide disputes over election law. | ||
| Major ruling yesterday from the Supreme Court, which made it more difficult for the big lie to repeat itself in 2024. | ||
| The case Moore v. | ||
| Harper, based out of North Carolina, centered on a radical theory known as the independent state legislature theory. | ||
| It would have given state legislatures virtually unchecked power over federal elections based on an extreme interpretation of the Constitution's Elections Clause. | ||
| In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court rejected that Anti-Democratic Theory with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett siding with the liberals in his opinion. | ||
| The Chief Justice writes, the elections clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review, adding... | ||
| That the legislatures, the framers recognized, are the mere creatures of the state constitutions and cannot be greater than their creators. | ||
| John Eastman, a legal advisor to Donald Trump, embraced this fringe theory as a way to overturn the 2020 election, arguing that then Vice President Mike Pence had the power To refuse to certify the results. | ||
| In an email exchange with NBC News, Eastman claimed the ruling would prevent legislatures from addressing illegality and fraud in a timely manner. | ||
| When asked if the ruling invalidates the arguments he made in 2020, Eastman wrote, quote, Joining us now to delve deeper into this ruling, senior legal affairs reporter at Politico, Josh Gerstein. | ||
| Josh, talk about if you could, what was at stake? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, this is pretty significant, Mika, on two different fronts. | |
| One, the one you just mentioned involving the 2024 presidential race and the possibility that you could have seen Republicans, specifically former President Trump, put forward this kind of effort to put state legislatures on steroids, you might say, to say that they could be the ultimate arbiter of who won an election in their state. | ||
| And that obviously could have led to It's post-election chaos. | ||
| That is the plan that the Trump team tried to start to run in 2020, but basically got cut off at the pass. | ||
| And the Supreme Court, through the reasoning of its ruling, makes it seem like that's a lot less likely here. | ||
| The second front, of course, is the issue of control of the U.S. House of Representatives. | ||
| And this decision seemed to shift the ground in favor of Democrats. | ||
| Let me jump in here. | ||
| Because we've got a lot of work to do today, so strap in. | ||
| Tuesday, 27th June. | ||
| Excuse me, it's Wednesday, the 28th of June. | ||
| I'm going to catch up with the day today. | ||
| We've got our head down here at the war room. | ||
| John Eastman is going to join us in a minute. | ||
| I want to make sure everyone understands the, as we said yesterday on the show when it first came out, the blockbuster nature of this ruling yesterday. | ||
| Think also what it means for where we spend our time and who you back, because now it's becoming clearer and clearer that the Bush kind of, you know, the Chevy Chase Republicans are not going to be following the Constitution. | ||
| This is just an outrageous decision. | ||
| It's really outrageous that Kavanaugh and Roberts in particular, the Chevy Chase crowd, went against this. | ||
| And you saw where the rocks of Gibraltar, Justice Alito, Justice Thomas, and Justice Gorsuch, and you ought to read their Dissenting opinion is quite powerful. | ||
| So we got two things we're going to do. | ||
| Eastman is going to come over and explain what actually took place and why this is so against the Constitution and taking powers away from the state legislatures, which is what the framers and the founders wanted. | ||
| And really consolidating power into the apparatus. | ||
| But we're also going to talk about what we have to do to fight back, particularly redistricting. | ||
| The reason I wanted to start the show with this today, this audience was absolutely central to the redistricting fights that took place in 21 and 22. | ||
| To make sure that these are fair. | ||
| These are not about partisan maps. | ||
| These are not about Republican maps. | ||
| These are not about MAGA maps. | ||
| These are about having fair redistricting efforts in these states that reflect the states themselves in both Missouri and in Florida, particularly, because DeSantis at the time was asleep at the switch. | ||
| I realized a lot of his fanboys saying, oh, no, no, no, he was not on it. | ||
| Okay, we know. We were there. | ||
| He got his mind right and did the right thing at the end. | ||
| But at the beginning, he was not there. | ||
| And the folks in the Tennessee legislature were really the ones that showed the way, that led the way on this. | ||
| I want to bring in Alex DeGrasse. | ||
| Alex, so talk to us. I'm going to get Eastman on in a minute to talk about The theory and the practicality of the state legislature, but talk to me about the work ahead. | ||
| What do we have to do to make sure we are fighting, and as we always fought for, fair redistricting that reflects the population of the state and the repopulation of these areas. | ||
| Walk me through what we have to do. | ||
| So I think what this unfortunate court decision puts it in front of us is these state Supreme Courts now are probably the most important You know, seat of power in our country, other than probably the presidency, of course. | ||
| But they'll determine election integrity issues, and they're going to determine, obviously, the redistricting. | ||
| And so you have a couple of things at play here. | ||
| We just lost Wisconsin for the first time, I think, in a decade or two, which was a disaster. | ||
| And I know this show and Scott Prezler and folks were really trying to force the issue to get people involved and get out to vote. | ||
| And we lost it. | ||
| We were able to flip Ohio. | ||
| Flip North Carolina, so that's critical. | ||
| So those maps will be revisited, of course. | ||
| In some states, it's sort of a status quo situation. | ||
| In New York, where, unfortunately, even the liberal court is better than the state legislator, we're looking at Our maps being tossed and we should have, you know, we should have the result of that court case within a month. | ||
| So what's at play, Steven, the short term is eight seats, I think, at Delta. | ||
| So we could pick up seats depending on if people hold the line and we get aggressive and push things through in North Carolina, Ohio. | ||
| If we could hold the line in Alabama, we've got a court case up to the Supreme Court in South Carolina on racial gerrymandering that Mark Elias is bringing. | ||
| So obviously, you know, it's a scam. | ||
| And then obviously New York with the Delta four seats there. | ||
| So Wisconsin, I think it's going to go down one or two against us. | ||
| So a lot at play here, but the key is state Supreme Court races are now, I think, the most important election other than the presidency. | ||
| These redistrictings in North Carolina and Ohio, just walk me through the simple math as you see what a fair map is and what are we actually fighting for? | ||
| Because with this situation in Alabama and Louisiana, they could change these districts. | ||
| I mean, we could be back to an even house right at the gate. | ||
| Talk about Ohio and North Carolina, and are there other opportunities out there like Ohio and North Carolina? | ||
| Right now, the states that are sort of up in play, you have New York, where it's sort of against us. | ||
| We have Wisconsin, which is against us. | ||
| Collectively, that could be about six seats swung against us, so that's net negative six seats. | ||
| North Carolina, there could be two, three seats, where if there were fair lines, you could have either more Republican-leading seats or a few more safe Republican seats. | ||
| Ohio is the same thing so that's one or two there so that gets us almost to a kind of a net break even across the board maybe down one or two. | ||
| South Carolina, that's next fall. | ||
| They're going to be revisiting that. | ||
| And then Alabama and Louisiana, I believe, don't quote me, but I think they're going to try to put seats up that would reflect somewhat of the same partisan demographics while having to change race pickup. | ||
| That's going to be net one out of each Alabama end. | ||
| So, I mean, best case... | ||
| In the best case, you're saying it's a breakeven if we deliver Ohio and North Carolina. | ||
| It's a breakeven, right? Right now, what is a five-seat majority? | ||
| You're saying this could be down to breakeven at best and maybe much worse. | ||
| It could be much worse. | ||
| If we hold New York, New York is going to be key because that's where the biggest delta is. | ||
| We have a great argument that we think that Mark Elias' case is an unmitigated fraud. | ||
| And probably one of the most blatant attempts to steal the election right in front of us. | ||
| So we don't have much faith in a way that it is a Democrat court and this thing goes all the way to the top. | ||
| They actually swapped out a judge and I believe blackmailed a former Republican then appointed by Cuomo head of the appeals court to get her out of the way just to jam through this court case. | ||
| So this thing goes all the way to the top. | ||
| You see, as you saw the lead of the show, all the mainstream media talking about it, you've got Obama weighing in, Holder Every Democrat person, they've all got the talking points, fringe legal theory, you know what I mean? | ||
| This whole thing, it's all centralized, all a massive power grab. | ||
| But, I mean, there's a small chance we pick up seats here if everything holds the line and we win that New York court case. | ||
| If we lose the New York court case, it gets very tough because we could lose one or two down south, Wisconsin, one or two, hold New York, and then pick up, you know, three, four in North Carolina, Ohio. | ||
| Yeah. Okay, Alex, what's your social media? | ||
| How do you get to it? Because this is another – obviously the war on posse was on this, and we're going to have to give in this blockbuster decision. | ||
| And you got – when you say Mark Elias in illegal, bad character thing, that's all true. | ||
| But he wins, and he could win here in New York. | ||
| People got to savvy up to that. | ||
| We don't have a mark alive. And I know people say, you can't say, you can't build him up. | ||
| Hey, I'm just dealing with facts. | ||
| I'm dealing with facts. He's a bad guy, he's an evil guy, but he's an effective guy. | ||
| And they're winning. | ||
| On this topic right now, they're winning. | ||
| I've got Eastman here in a minute. | ||
| Where do they go on your social media to get you and track this? | ||
| So the most important thing, I think, if people go to GOPBattlegroundFund.com, that talks about some of our efforts in New York. | ||
| GOPBattlegroundFund.com, that's critical. | ||
| But I'm on social, at DeGrasse, at DeGrasse81, TruthGetter, all of it. | ||
| Politico just did the big headline. | ||
| Millions of dollars going to be pouring into these state Supreme Court races. | ||
| So it's a big fight up ahead. | ||
| So thank you. Lead Story in Politico this morning about how, you know, and we talked yesterday about the litigation. | ||
| This decision is the full employment program for Mark Elias and his type. | ||
| And you're going to pour the fights for these Supreme Courts. | ||
| And we told people about Wisconsin. | ||
| I mean, we didn't really know the guy they put in Wisconsin, but he didn't seem like was on top of things. | ||
| And the people in Wisconsin, the establishment up there and others just kind of let it go. | ||
| Okay. Alex, great. | ||
| Thank you very much for kicking us off this morning. | ||
| John Eastman next. | ||
| We're also going to go to Texas. | ||
| Two big stories a day on the front page of papers deal directly with the war room. | ||
| The Guardian is lying about the situation with solar power in the grid in Texas. | ||
| Dave Walsh is here to tell you the truth. | ||
| Also the front page of the Wall Street Journal is the article about Sequoia Capital. | ||
| There's a lot more to expose there. | ||
| John Eastman, Dave Walsh next in the war room. | ||
| Chris Hayes, it is not often the case these days, but today the Supreme Court issued a long-anticipated, monumental ruling that actually bolsters America's democratic strength. | ||
| Now, the case before the court today contained at its core an idea that was central to the Donald Trump scheme to overturn the 2020 elections. | ||
| The question of whether state legislatures can do whatever they want in elections, up to and including simply appointing electors to their preferred candidate, even when the citizens of their state vote the other way. | ||
| Trump's lawyers pushed the idea that Republican legislators in all kinds of states could simply ignore the will of the people in states that voted for Joe Biden and opt instead to send their own fake electors, Trump electors, to Congress. | ||
| It was fake electors in seven swing states, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Nevada, that in coordination with the Trump campaign, sought to overthrow the election results. | ||
| Trump and his lawyer John Eastman, along with others, actively lobbied for and pushed this idea across multiple states, trying in fact to get state legislatures to abandon their core democratic duty and choose instead a path to essentially crown Trump king. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Court has rejected a controversial legal theory that would have transformed election laws across this country. | |
| The case involved a disputed congressional district map in North Carolina that was drawn by Republicans. | ||
| Now, the state argued that the Constitution gives legislators nearly unlimited power to make rules for presidential and congressional elections in their states. | ||
| On a six to three vote, the justices dismissed the independent state legislature theory. | ||
| That's what it's called. The decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts maintains this, that state courts can decide disputes over election law. | ||
| Major ruling yesterday from the Supreme Court, which made it more difficult for the big lie to repeat itself in 2024. | ||
| The case Moore v. | ||
| Harper, based out of North Carolina, centered on a radical theory known as the independent state legislature theory. | ||
| It would have given state legislatures virtually unchecked power over federal elections based on an extreme interpretation of the Constitution's Elections Clause. | ||
| In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court rejected that Anti-Democratic Theory with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett siding with the liberals in his opinion. | ||
| The Chief Justice writes, the elections clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review, adding... | ||
| That the legislatures, the framers recognized, are the mere creatures of the state constitutions and cannot be greater than their creators. | ||
| John Eastman, a legal advisor to Donald Trump, embraced this fringe theory as a way to overturn the 2020 election, arguing that then Vice President... | ||
| Okay. Okay. Okay. | ||
| John Eastman joins us now. | ||
| John Eastman... Is this a fringe theory? | ||
| I want you to walk through the theory of the case here, why this was such a radical decision yesterday. | ||
| And I want to tell people this is signal, not noise. | ||
| This is going to change the battlefield and you're going to have to. | ||
| I realize you're the hardest working people in the MAGA movement, but you got to man up here because this is going to be ugly. | ||
| It's going to be a grind. John Eastman, was this a radical fringe theory, sir? | ||
| Well, for the first half century of our nation's history, the state legislature simply chose the electors themselves. | ||
| That's because unambiguously the Constitution assigns the power to direct the manner of choosing presidential electors to the legislature. | ||
| Unambiguous. There's no dispute about that. | ||
| Anybody can pick up Article II of their Constitution and look at it. | ||
| It's right there. And if it's such a fringe theory, it's a little odd that I got several justices agreeing with me. | ||
| That typically doesn't happen on fringe theories. | ||
| But more importantly, and I want to go after this theme that all of those news accounts said that this is going to bolster democracy. | ||
| What we're doing here is taking the power to direct the manner of choosing electors from the most democratic branch, the legislature, and handing it over to the state courts, the least democratic branch. | ||
| And yet this is somehow bolstering democracy to let courts, you know, pick a phrase in their state constitution that says, you know, you have to have free elections and use that to impose its own election code contrary to what the state legislature does. | ||
| If they decide, well, we got to have no excuse mail-in voting and the legislature disagrees, well, we think it's necessary for fair elections, so we're going to order it. | ||
| Signature verification in order to eliminate the risk of fraud or reduce the risk of fraud? | ||
| Well, we don't like that, so we're going to get rid of that because we don't think that's fair. | ||
| And these are oftentimes unelected judges or, at the very least, certainly less accountable than the state legislators are. | ||
| The notion that this is undermining democracy by letting the power stay where the Constitution vests it is rather bizarre. | ||
| And the other thing I want to point out, they all say, well, we were using this to overturn the election and undermine the will of the people. | ||
| No, we weren't, as you know well. | ||
| We were trying to understand who the true winner was in order to bolster or enhance the will of the people. | ||
| If there were illegal votes that were cast because of decisions by county clerks or state Supreme Court judges or secretaries of state, illegal votes that determined the outcome of the election, And if you count only the legal votes, Trump would have won. | ||
| That's upholding the will of the people, not undermining it. | ||
| So this narrative, this big lie narrative that they keep fostering... | ||
| And hang on. But hang on. | ||
| But hang on. Isn't that for the state legislatures? | ||
| This whole thing was not about new electors or anything like that. | ||
| It's about the certification by the state legislatures of their election process. | ||
| And you're absolutely correct. The all votes versus the certifiable chain of custody legal votes. | ||
| I just want to go back because you had Roberts and Kavanaugh. | ||
| What does the Constitution say? | ||
| Just what does the Constitution say and where did the framers and the founders of this nation put this power about the whole systems of electors? | ||
| Yeah, it says the states in the manner chosen by the – shall direct the manner of choosing electors, the states by the legislature thereof. | ||
| Shall choose the manner or direct the manner of choosing presidential electors. | ||
| It parallels the clause that was at issue. | ||
| Okay. And was that not reinforced? | ||
| Isn't this why they changed the Electoral Count Act of 1887 in the middle of the night and jammed it into an omnibus bill? | ||
| I mean, this is as clear as you can get. | ||
| It's certainly part of it. Yeah, no, exactly. | ||
| This is part of it. So here's my point, just because I'm not a constitutional scholar like you. | ||
| If that is in the Constitution, what does Roberts argue that this should shift and the courts and others should get involved in this process? | ||
| How can they reinterpret the Constitution like that? | ||
| Well, their argument is that, well, back at the time of the founding, it was customary for state courts to have judicial review over things their legislature did. | ||
| But that was when the legislature is acting pursuant to the state constitution. | ||
| When they're acting pursuant to the federal constitution, their power comes directly from the federal constitution. | ||
| And of course, they're bound by constraints in the federal constitution. | ||
| But to say that they are also bound by constraints or limitations in their state constitution is to that extent to take the power the federal constitution gives to them away. | ||
| And I'll give you one example. | ||
| And Chief Justice Roberts knew this well a decade ago. | ||
| He writes a dissent in the Arizona... | ||
| A redistricting commission case that's very powerful and very persuasive. | ||
| There are nine or ten places where the Constitution gives power not to the state but to the state legislature, like when they decide whether to ratify a constitutional amendment. | ||
| And we've now opened the door to say, well, if they ratify a constitutional amendment and there's some provision in their state constitution that says they can only ratify fair amendments, then the state court is going to decide whether it can be ratified or not. | ||
| This is a radical departure from the federal constitution. | ||
| And from decades, half a century, like I said, states were choosing their own electors in many instances, all the way up to 1860 for South Carolina, choosing their own electors. | ||
| The election for state legislatures leading up to the presidential election year would often turn on who you were supporting for president, who you're going to cast a vote for in your state legislature. | ||
| But that's clear. | ||
| And the Supreme Court, over a century ago, called that power plenary. | ||
| Meaning it doesn't answer to anybody else because they wanted the power in the branch of government most directly accountable to the people, not in an unelected judiciary or even when the judiciary is elected. | ||
| They're not kind of elected routinely and frequently like the state legislature is. | ||
| So going forward, according to this ruling, going forward, the state legislature, like we saw in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, all these rule changes they had, and some were unconstitutional, the two-signature verification of the mail-in ballots, all of this. | ||
| In 2024, walk me through, how does this work in 2024? | ||
| Well, it's going to be a lawfare bonanza. | ||
| So there's a line in there, Justice Thomas in his dissent points out, It says that the legislature is subject to the ordinary judicial review. | ||
| But then it says, I want to get the language here, so judicial review, but only as long as it doesn't, quote, transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review, such that the courts aggregate to themselves the power vested in the state legislatures to regulate federal elections. | ||
| So when is a court decision striking down an aspect of state election law in the ordinary power of judicial review, or is it transgressing those ordinary bounds? | ||
| And there's no answer to that. | ||
| It's just going to be a raw exercise of power by the courts. | ||
| And then the question is, how often will the Supreme Court step in To limit what the state courts are doing. | ||
| We saw this in 2000 in Florida. | ||
| The state court was simply changing the rules of the election after the fact with a partisan bent. | ||
| I know one of the reasons you have rules in advance is that when you pass the rules, nobody knows who they're going to benefit. | ||
| When you allow for rules to be changed in the middle of the game, every single change, you know which side that's going to benefit. | ||
| If you weaken absentee ballot verification rules and you know that one side is relying much more heavily on absentee ballots than the other, that's a partisan decision to benefit one side. | ||
| John, can you hang on for one second? | ||
| We're going to just hold you through the break. I understand you're very busy out there today. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We'll talk about that in a second. John Eastman, Dave Walsh. | |
| We've got Mark Mitchell on some polling. | ||
| All next in the war room. | ||
|
unidentified
|
And you are over. | |
| Cause we're taking down the CCP. Spread the word all through Hong Kong. | ||
| We will fight till they're all gone. | ||
| We rejoice when there's no more. | ||
| Let's take down the CCP. Here's your host, Stephen K. Mann. | ||
| Okay, welcome back. | ||
| John Eastman, I just want to revisit this before I ask you how we go forward. | ||
| And this shows you the cowardice of John Roberts. | ||
| And I want everybody in this audience to fully understand this. | ||
| What Bushes are like. | ||
| Go back to that Arizona opinion and how adamant and how strong his dissent was and specifically what he said about the state legislature and then compare and contrast that to what he did now that they've protested at his home. | ||
| I mean, look, these guys cratered. | ||
| To the mob. This is French Revolution stuff. | ||
| This is they cratered to the mob because they're afraid. | ||
| They're afraid and they don't want to go against that. | ||
| You saw that we started, and by the way, we could have played two hours of just clips like that for our cold open today. | ||
| Two hours of just, you know, radical theory, French theory, you know, Trump, they want to crown Trump king. | ||
| There's no discussion ever about crowning President Trump king. | ||
| The 2020 election will always be a scar on the American electoral process. | ||
| And I've said from day one that Joe Biden's illegitimate presidency. | ||
| I'll never back off that. | ||
| That's my belief in my thinking as a free American citizen. | ||
| And we can back it up with receipts that they don't want to ever address. | ||
| John, but I just want to focus on Roberts because this gets to the hub of it. | ||
| This is why people were so, quite frankly, enthusiastic. | ||
| Although this thing shouldn't have even been brought, it should have been taken off given the reversal in North Carolina. | ||
| But he wanted to do it. | ||
| He wanted to take it. | ||
| There was no need to have this actually be argued. | ||
| He wanted it. And he wanted it to show the left that he's a good little boy. | ||
| He's a good little boy and he's in his place. | ||
| That's exactly what this is all about. | ||
| Go back to, and don't take it from me. | ||
| Take it from his written opinions. | ||
| I want to just highlight Arizona 10 years ago with what he said that got released yesterday, John Eastman. | ||
| Well, he goes through every clause in the Constitution that mentions the word state or legislature. | ||
| And when it says that there's a power in the state or a reserved power in the state, they mean the whole state apparatus according to the state constitution. | ||
| But when it says the legislature of the state, that's specific, and it's referring to a particular body. | ||
| And so if you're going to split a part of your state off and form a new state, like happened with West Virginia during the Civil War from Virginia, the legislature of the state has to approve. | ||
| That doesn't mean the legislature of the state is subject to judicial review, subject to the governor's signature. | ||
| If you're going to approve A constitutional amendment. | ||
| Congress has two routes. | ||
| They can send it to a constitutional convention in your state or they can send it to the legislature of the state. | ||
| And there's the Supreme Court case that says even the lieutenant governor presiding over that session doesn't get to cast the deciding vote. | ||
| Because that's no longer the legislature of the state. | ||
| So all of these mechanisms in the state constitution, you want to call yourself into special session to deal with election fraud? | ||
| You get to do that. | ||
| You don't have to wait for the governor to call you into special session. | ||
| That's a constraint. On your normal legislative powers that the state constitution provides that doesn't apply, or at least according to Roberts at the time, didn't apply in the context of exercising powers that you have from the federal constitution. | ||
| So that was all clear and very persuasively argued in Chief Justice Roberts' dissent 10 years ago. | ||
| And that was a 5-4 decision, one expected that with the change in personnel since then. | ||
| That Robert's views then would become the majority views of the court. | ||
| Where do we go from here on this topic? | ||
| Well, we've got to ramp up. | ||
| The Democrats are spending tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars on lawfare. | ||
| They're doing it in two ways. | ||
| They're on offense in the state courts. | ||
| Trying to alter election laws that they don't like. | ||
| Weakening signature verification to open the door for fraud, getting rid of voter ID requirements, all these things. | ||
| And if the legislatures don't comply with their demands and their pressure, they will now try and get friendly courts to do so. | ||
| And in many cases, they will fine them. | ||
| They're also on offense, keeping the rest of us on defense. | ||
| That's the larger story of my bar trial, the 65 projects seeking to disbar all of the Trump lawyers. | ||
| Keep us on our heels so we can't be ramped up in time for the 2024 election because we're fighting for our professional lives. | ||
| And also, and this is important, and the head of the 65 project has admitted as much. | ||
| Our goal is not just to get them all disbarred, but to make them so toxic in their firms and communities that right-wing legal talent will never want to step up and bring these election challenges again. | ||
| They're trying to clear the field so that they have an unhindered path toward doing it in the election law, whatever they want. | ||
| And that if the election is wonky or illegal or fraudulent, there won't be anybody willing to put their head above the sand and take on the challenge. | ||
| If you want to see the cowardice, just look in John Roberts. | ||
| Exhibit one in a coward. | ||
| And this is what's going to happen to these law firms. | ||
| This is lawfare. | ||
| Hey, This is where Mark Elias and the 65 projects, these are bad people. | ||
| But they play Smash Mouth. | ||
| And this is the lesson that we have to take from this. | ||
| You're going to have to fight fire with fire. | ||
| If you want to defeat these guys, they control the law schools. | ||
| They control these big law firms. | ||
| And they're coming at you. And guys like Roberts are what most lawyers are, gutless cowards. | ||
| That's why we need heroes to step up here. | ||
| And we need to do it now. | ||
| This is like you've got to break the glass on this. | ||
| Go to general quarters. | ||
| You've got to get some legal talent. | ||
| We've got to fight this. I call it the Mark Elias Full Employment Program. | ||
| This is going to be a range war like you've never seen before. | ||
| And John Eastman is exactly correct. | ||
| It's going to be ten times worse in 2020. | ||
| And it's here now. And this was not close, it was a 6-3 decision. | ||
| You had Kavanaugh and Barrett, who knows? | ||
| But Kavanaugh and Roberts with a Chevy Chase. | ||
| You can see they got the mob and you have to give them credit. | ||
| They have to give them credit. | ||
| They unleashed the mob on these guys and went to the homes and everybody stood around. | ||
| We covered it every second of every day. | ||
| Mike Davis on here. It worked. | ||
| Let's face reality. | ||
| Let's not try to sugarcoat this. | ||
| It worked. The mob went to their homes. | ||
| Think about it for a second. In the United States of America, we had an attorney general. | ||
| We had the apparatus of your government. | ||
| And even the states, where was Yunkin? | ||
| And of course, Maryland's a bunch of commies. | ||
| They all looked, in fact, I think it was Hogan at the time, talking about a commie. | ||
| They all looked the other way. | ||
| In the suburbs around Virginia, they let him go. | ||
| And remember, Kavanaugh had an assassination attempt on him. | ||
| Nobody said anything. Nobody did anything. | ||
| You had war on other people. | ||
| But they went out. | ||
| The mob, the French Revolution mob, the Red Guard went out and they have a struggle session with them. | ||
| And they won. | ||
| Just remember that. | ||
| They won. They won. | ||
| And it was personified yesterday. | ||
| Which should have never happened. | ||
| Absolutely against the Constitution. | ||
| And as importantly, against what Justice Roberts argued so tightly That's why this was like coming out of a thunderclap from a clear blue summer sky. | ||
| Absolutely went against everything he believed with this mumbo jumbo. | ||
| And I think you got three pretty smart guys that dissented. | ||
| I'll take the intellect. | ||
| You give me the combined intellect or you give me the intellect of any one of Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch against the collective intellect of the other six. | ||
| Okay? You give me that, I'll take any one of those guys. | ||
| And read what they had to say. | ||
| This is outrageous, and I'm telling you, it's the Mark Elias Full Employment Program. | ||
| And we need, I've said this, we needed a Mark Elias on our side, and we ain't got it. | ||
| We ain't got close to it. | ||
| And you're actually right. | ||
| The project, the 65, these people, these are very smart, very tough, very cunning people. | ||
| In the project, in the 65 project, it's not just a keelhaul John Eastman on global television. | ||
| Right? And give him a struggle session for days and days and days. | ||
| But it's the following question. It's to make it so toxic, the topic so toxic, that any kid that's in a top law school can't even talk about it in law school. | ||
| If you can't go to a real firm, if you go to a firm and bring it up, you're out or you'll never get hired by a firm. | ||
| And none of the firms with the heavyweight lawyers will ever touch it. | ||
| We'll ever touch it. That's the way the system works. | ||
| These people know the system, and they're going to leverage points in the system. | ||
| They know how to use leverage. Look at this hapless group of clowns. | ||
| McCarthy, look at all the information that has come out. | ||
| And by the way, Tom Elliott, if Grayson Moe can put that up, Tom Elliott has got an amazing thing just going through the 2020 election, not on the electoral side, but the FBI. It's just amazing. | ||
| It's like a tweet that's got 10 items on it. | ||
| McCarthy and these guys have all this and they're running around. | ||
| The investigation up there are all performative. | ||
| God bless them. It's all performative. | ||
| They're not getting to the heart of it. | ||
| The radical Democrats get to the heart of the matter. | ||
| They get to the leverage point in a system and they choke that leverage point and they win. | ||
| And they win. There is no substitute for victory. | ||
| John Eastman, tell us about your struggle session and how can this audience help and assist you, sir? | ||
| Well, we're in week two, although we've been down the last two days because of illness of one of my key lawyers. | ||
| But we'll be back on tomorrow. | ||
| It's being live-streamed. | ||
| The press accused me of whining about it being livestreamed. | ||
| It was the other side that actually asked for it not to be livestreamed. | ||
| I wanted it livestreamed so people would see for a fact what's happening rather than have it distorted through the lens of the LA Times or NBC News. | ||
| But we're not going to finish this week. | ||
| They're not even going to finish with their witnesses, much less our case. | ||
| So we're continuing in the end of August. | ||
| At least another week there, maybe two. | ||
| But it's expensive. | ||
| I mean, you've got a full team of lawyers and courtroom techs and all that stuff. | ||
| This is a full-blown trial that I'm defending on the validity of the entire election. | ||
| Because on your show, I said there's lots of evidence of fraud and illegality. | ||
| So now they're putting on all the government people trotting out saying, oh, no, our election was perfect. | ||
| And anybody that says otherwise, well, how dare they question the government? | ||
| That's basically the theme. | ||
| People need to help because I'm punching back and I need their help. | ||
| They can go to my legal defense fund, givesendgo.com slash Eastman. | ||
| We post updates there. | ||
| You can make donations there. | ||
| And as importantly, you can send prayers there. | ||
| My wife and I read them. | ||
| They're heartwarming and they help. | ||
| So please, please do what you can. | ||
| This is just like Mal and the Red Guard. | ||
| This is a struggle session. They're using Eastman as an example to every young lawyer out there. | ||
| If you come here, if you go there, if you question authority, if you question the government, if you question the government, this is what will happen to you. | ||
| You will be destroyed. You won't be able to make a living. | ||
| You won't be able to feed your family. | ||
| Everything you've worked for, destroyed. | ||
| Done. That's your lesson. | ||
| So tell me what people in the modern world are supposed to do. | ||
| Was that the revolutionary generation? | ||
| Was that Patrick Henry? Was that Thomas Paine? | ||
| Was that Sam Adams? Was that John Hancock? | ||
| Was that Jefferson? These are the times that try men's souls. | ||
| And these are the times that try men's souls. | ||
| And you need to stand up as patriots and not be summer soldiers or sunshine patriots. | ||
| It's exactly the same. | ||
| And people need to stand up. | ||
| They need to first realize what's going on. | ||
| And they need to not cower in the face of it. | ||
| There are things more important than, you know, a nice, comfortable life. | ||
| We're talking about the future of freedom for the generations to come. | ||
| And if you're not willing to stand up, you will have handed your grandkids a despotism that they will suffer through in a way that you didn't inherit from your ancestors. | ||
| So stand up and fight. | ||
| Stand up and help those that are standing up and fighting. | ||
| By the way, you won't see any more protesters, I assure you, outside of Kavanaugh and Roberts' home. | ||
| They've kowtowed. Yep. | ||
| Cucked, as we say. | ||
| John Eastman, thank you very much, brother. | ||
| Thank you for being here. Thank you, Mr. | ||
| Bannon. Short break. We're going to get to the grid in Texas. | ||
| Thank you, sir. We're going to get to the grid in Texas with our own Dave Walsh next. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's all started. | |
| Everything's begun. | ||
| And you are over. | ||
| Cause we're taking down the CCP! Spread the word all through Hong Kong! | ||
| We will fight till they're all gone! | ||
| We rejoice when there's no more! | ||
| Let's take down the CCP! Here's your host, Stephen K. Band. | ||
| Okay. So the world's newspapers are... | ||
| I don't say confronting is too hard a word, but they're addressing the issues and what we talk about every day here. | ||
| I want to go first is The Guardian newspaper, their lead story. | ||
| Remember, The Guardian is the most progressive paper in the world. | ||
| It's kind of the railhead. It's even more progressive than The New York Times. | ||
| I know that's hard to believe, and it's really a feeder system to MSNBC. So one connects with the other. | ||
| Obviously, The New York Times, but The Guardian is kind of the... | ||
| Because remember, the Americans still always defer to the British how they think, right? | ||
| The Financial Times of London, The Times of London, The Guardian. | ||
| Dave Walsh. The lead starring The Guardian, Dave Walsh, effectively says you're either dead wrong or liar. | ||
| You can take your pick. Because the blazing headline is that, and we just had Dave on yesterday, that with this heat wave in Texas, thank God. | ||
| They've got solar. Because solar is going to actually see the Texans in the grid through this. | ||
| Now, that is 180 out from the theory of the case of Dave Walsh in the war room. | ||
| So Dave, according to their article, the way they wrote it, who's right and who's wrong here? | ||
| Well, of course, in times like these when we're worried about peak day power, any source that runs is a good thing. | ||
| Anyone. But here's the deal with this. | ||
| This is irresponsible, massively irresponsible. | ||
| We're talking about another, in terms of what Texas needs, this is yet another intermittent resource. | ||
| That runs, it operates in Texas about 27% of the time. | ||
| Solar is used for electrical energy. | ||
| I have a map of the U.S. that shows the solar concentration by part of the country that Denver has. | ||
| If they want to throw that up, we can show that. | ||
| But anyhow, solar is effective in Texas about six and a half hours a day, leaving the other 17 and a half hours it doesn't operate. | ||
| The trouble with wind is it operates 36% of the time and not 64% of the time. | ||
| And you can't just add these two together and pretend that one compensates for the other because, frankly, they overlap about 5.8. | ||
| Here's the wind variability daily in the U.S. for electric power generation. | ||
| You can see that it varies by day. | ||
| This is EIA, Energy Information Agency data, for 2001, showing 2020, day by day by day, a 75% variability in wind power for electricity creation. | ||
| Texas is actually worse than this. | ||
| This is a US map, more data points. | ||
| Texas, a more condensed geographic region, subject to the same weather conditions, sameness of that is 87% daily variability. | ||
| This is the problem with their dependence on wind. | ||
| The next chart was the map of the U.S. on solar, but if we don't have that, there you go. | ||
| This shows solar values by region of the country, and you can see if one could read the legend in the bottom right-hand corner, it's published by the National Renewable Electricity Labs. | ||
| This isn't a conservative group. | ||
| This is a front for renewables. | ||
| The publisher of this data, it's good data, it shows that Texas, on average, is about a six and a half hour solar day. | ||
| The rest of the time, the other 17 and a half hours, it produces nothing. | ||
| Here's the problem with this. | ||
| In Irving, for example, last night, tonight, at 10 p.m., it's going to be 93. | ||
| At 11 p.m., it's going to be 91. | ||
| At midnight, it's going to be 90. | ||
| At 1 a.m., it's going to be 88 degrees. | ||
| In Dallas, in the Metroplex today. | ||
| Solar stops operating at 5 o'clock, 5 p.m. | ||
| So all of those hours beyond 5 p.m., it does nothing for you. | ||
| So here again, and the point, then if you go to the cost of this, the cost of Texas legislature and Senate has just passed a bill to incentivize building 10,000 megawatts of gas plants to back up this problem of intermittency that both of these resources have. | ||
| It's going to provide them 96 million megawatt hours per year of electricity. | ||
| That amount of annual electricity capacity in megawatt hours, if solar, would cost $48 billion. | ||
| Passed to the ratepayers, the 10,000 or 96,000 megawatt, 96 million megawatt hours of gas-fired power will cost the ratepayers about $13 billion. | ||
| 48 billion of solar, 13 billion of conventional gas, and by the way, the solar still only gets you six and a half hours a day and massively overlaps with the same 36% of the time that wind operates. | ||
|
unidentified
|
This is not the solution. Yes, yes. | |
| Yesterday, 18,000 people, I think, had a brownout. | ||
| I think they're going to start blackouts here shortly or maybe had blackouts. | ||
| That's two combat divisions. | ||
| How did Texas get into the situation where an advanced industrial power like Texas with all the new stuff in Austin, everything they're doing, the chip manufacturing, how do we get in a situation? | ||
| It's like a third world country. | ||
| How did that happen? Well, national policy, the policy on incentivizing buildings kinds of generation tend to be national through the tax codes. | ||
| The tax codes have given a 35 percent incentive to renewable wind and solar. | ||
| Developers in Texas have jumped on that. | ||
| There is no regulated power generation in Texas. | ||
| You have to get to the state house to mandate, and the governor, mandate regulations. | ||
| They don't have an energy department in Texas. | ||
| And what's wound up happening is developers have built out for them. | ||
| With the support of the state, 37% of their energy resource for electricity is renewable. | ||
| That is available only a very part time. | ||
| Again, 36, 37% of the time because most of it right now is wind, that renewable resource that's been built. | ||
| So the state has a massive continuous electricity shortage. | ||
| And the worst problem with this is actually winter. | ||
| Everybody commenting on this recognizes and understands what Texas saw in January of 21 is a far worse problem. | ||
| It's exactly the same thing. | ||
| Down here in the south in winter mornings is the utter peak And you have a massive shortfall. | ||
| You have no solar capacity in the morning between 5 a.m. | ||
| and 9 a.m. when you have massive demand or peak demand in the winter due to heat pumps coming on when it's 20 degrees periodically in Texas. | ||
| That's a bigger problem. Solar isn't there for you then. | ||
| It doesn't work at that time of the day. | ||
| We got about a minute. | ||
| What do you forecast what's going to happen in Texas in the next couple of days next week? | ||
| We're not looking for weather relief until around the 4th of July, so we're going to be bumping up against, they have 81,000 megawatts of total capacity. | ||
| We've hit 78,800 and 80,000, respectively, two of the last four days. | ||
| So we're going to have continued announcements of voluntary power containment across ERCOT. We'll see how that works. | ||
| If the temperatures don't abate, we may have rolling brownouts covering four-hour day periods, mainly between 4 and 8 p.m. | ||
| up through 10 p.m. that the state is massively exposed to because it's probably, because of the shortage of power overall, about 15 times more exposed to an electricity shortage brought out than the rest of the country because reserve margins there are so, so low due to this massive over-absorption of wind. | ||
| Real quickly, Dave, where do people go on social media to get you? | ||
| Once again, intermittent solar doubles down on the problem, doesn't solve it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Dave Walsh Energy at the Getter and True Social. | |
| For a great state like Texas, one of the most important states in the Union, to be in this situation is absolutely, completely and totally outrageous. | ||
| Short break, Kirk Cameron will join us next. |
Export Selection